High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe the High court may be circumstances stated in'ii" '?iil'ii-nGo .trerewitn' oleased to issue writ oroei o"r oii""ti"t more in the nature of Mandamus' declaring ihe inaction of the Respofo""t.l'""t considering,ihe oetitioner for dependant employment though the #t:til;t'iJ'"iigior" tor-oeoen'dant employment under Nationat Coat Wage o.,,'ll.ir"i"r,-riiiii iroittu*iJiicriminatory, violation of and21 of Constitution '"on-t1a"t the petitioner for principtesof Natural Lr"ti"J"rni"r7ioirtionoiArt..14,1'6,19(S) of lndia consequen.y, Oir"-"i'tn" nlipondents to emolovment under the dependent employment groundd and issue appointment order within a Period of 1 5 daYs' IA NO i1 oF 20 23 Petition rrnde. Secti _ ;rHTil:?1rhiil r*s;s}l[llHiril;rff "dk[{ff,!#i!qffi under the o.lp".'o,l.i"rlillo:-q"nt" to consider the petitioner i"ilrpil"#"", period of 1s days. ' oyment grounds and issue appointment orJ"ffini,i " Counsel for the petitioner: ,itff SRl. RAMESH BURA S,i,Hi'='ffS,1Eil?JS""HiiSi " The Court made the following: ORDER sRr HARSHA REDD' (sc FoR HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA R TPETITIO o. 2 27 oF2 o23 o RD ER Bura, learned counsel Heard Sri Ramesh petitioner and Sri P'Sri appearing on behalf of the Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singarent Limited, aPPearing on behalf of Collieries ComPanY the resPondents' 2 h e it r ro che a era u r k n "...to issue Writ, order or direction more ,n,n" nu,rr" of Mandamus' declaring the the ResPondents' .no: i"*ii"- "t .""t,J"t'.n the petitioner for dependent oy."n,, though the petitioner ls for dependent emplovment u1d9r "rpf *.1,""", Coal Wage Act' as illegal' unfair' "i,nloi" ;;'i;.;r, discriminatory' violation .. n.inciotes of natural justice and violation [io". to, 16, 19(g) & 21 of constitution of India, consequentlY' direct the i"tponi"r" to consider the petitioner for under the dePendent emploYment grounds and issue "rnp'or-.", ordlr within a period of 15 "rJ"'*r"., the interest of justice and to pass Jurt, '" \ 2 SN,J W. P. No.:t 222 7 of 2023 s;uch other order or orders as this Hon,ble Oourt may deems Fit just and proper i1 the circumstances of the case.,,

3. -he case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitio ter is the legally adopted son of late S.Nageswara Rao, r,r ho had worked as permanent employee in Singareni collieri :s c ompany Limited as Generar Mazdoor and passed away rvhile in service on 04.07 ,2006 adoptive nother of the petitioner passed Therealter, the petition lr's; pa rents petitionr:r :;ubmitted days of the death of the away after five petitioner's adoptive father. As the passed away in the year 2C06, the representation to the res pondent authorit es |or dependent emproyment under Nationar Coal Wage Ar;reement (NCWA). However, the respondents have not cons idered the case of the petitioner for employment. Aggrieved b)/ the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. E RECO D

5. Thri_Eg raf dav th ents an b en fi ed nb the relevant oa rao ra Dh Nos.8 and 9 of the said coun r r r er: , t 3 W.P.No'a2227 5N,J ot 2023 I 1 1'l t "8. In reply to para nos' 6' 7 and 8 of the affidavit,itissubmittedthatthepetitionerhas submitted an application seeking dependent employment on 2O'OB'2019 and not in 2006 as claimed by him' The petitioner has requested to condone the delay for submitting application seeking dependent employment and his request for condoning the delay in submission of application seeking dependent employment has been agreed vide letter No' CRP/PER/WEL/DEl4027 ' dtd' 30.O7.2OLg, subject to medical fitness and genuineness of dependent and fulfilling all the guidelines in vogue' Further' in order to verify the genuineness of his relation to the ex-employee' his case was referred to the Vigilance department of the respondent company' where it was established that the petitioner is adopted son of the ex- emploYee. As Per the Circular No' P.4)l5o36llul2tg, dtd' 27'ol'L992' one male dependent of the worker will be provided employment in the respondent company' The term male dependent for all purposes of the dependent employment, will mean son, son-in-law and younger brother of the ex-worker and it is very specifically mentioned that adopted sons will not be eligible for dependent employment. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the respondent company has issued a circular bearing 4 w.p.No 3222 7 of 2lo1i r o. CRP/PER/IR/C/OBI/305. did. 09.03.2018 ro proviJe dependent er s,ns, or tne emprolpe:Til,j: ::.,,";il,:: b -.corre medically i, prospectivery ef Fect from or.rr.rrrn""o"o In this instant case, :;ince th 3 ca se arouse u, o,u' the date of termination of th : errproyee due to d p.visicn or exrendins :ilr";# ffi;:::,t,rj legally adopted son ca e into force prospecii'/ely wit 1 ef fect from 09.03 eriEibre ror dependen, J:,t"i'rtn.petitioner 9. .:::TT:,LJj: sub nitt,:d rhar as ,", .,llr"tr"j No. p. 4015036/IR/27g, dated 27.07.1992, ,,the ternr male dependent for all purposes of dependent employltent, will mean son, son_in_law and yo(rrger brother of the ex_worker. Adopted sor.rs will not be eligible. The dependent to be consldererd for employment shoutd be physicaily tit, suitat)le br employment underground and aged betwe :en l8 and 35 years,,. It is submitted that th e provis;iorr of providing employment to legally adopted ;on came into force prospectively wiilr effect frorn 09,03.2018. " ..n reply to para no. g of rha :FF;..r^..:. is nor I r 5N,l of 2023 W.P.No'32227 5 L AN s 1/30s', resPondents' in Particular' respondent cRP/PER/IR/c/oB dependent employmen emPloYees' who died ffidavit filed on behalf of the 6. The counter a paragraPh Nos'B and 9 (referred to . and extracted abov e), clearlY indicates that the company rssued a circular bearing No' dated 09'03'2018 to provide t to legallY adopted sons of the in service or become medicallY ly with effect from 09'03'2018' the fact that the petitioner's adoptive 2006 and as on that date there was no ng dependent employment to legally since the same has come into force effect from 09'03'2018 but not the Petitioner is not eligible for invalided ProsPective Therefore, in view of father died on 04'07' provision of extendi adopted sons and prosPectively with as such' retrosPedivelY' dePendent emPloYment' 7 I t a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the n d case, ( I I I I l 6 w.p.No.3222z or 2?Ii at paragraph Nos.g and g idavit filed on behatf of the b) Ihe submissions made by the tearned counsel apgrearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Sta nding Counsel for t'n'"teni collieries company Limited appearing on,t behalf of the respondents, c) The averments in the counter .rr,'"'u resp<lndr:nts (referred to and extracted above) and, d) fn view of the fact as borne on record that the circutar No.p.4ol5036/lR/27g, dated 27.o7.7ss2 indica tes that the term male dependent for alf purposies of dependent employment, woulcf mean sons, son_in_faw and Younger brother of the ex_ worker anlC further clear stipulation that the adopted sons will not be eligible for dependent emptoyment and sirrce the provision of providing dependent employrnent to legalty adopted sons, came into force prospectively with effect from O9.O3.2018 as specificarfly averred at paragraph No.g of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, \\ 7 stl,l of 2023 W.P.No.32227 Court opines that the Petitioner This entitled for the relief as prayed for in the and accordingly' the writ However, there shall be petition, dismissed' is not present writ petition is no order as to costs. Asa sequel, the miscellaneous pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed' petitions, if anY' /ffRUE COPY// 'R'ito'fltYAEt,EiRlX SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRl. RAMESH BURA Advocate [OPUCI one cc to sRt. p sRt HAR'HA REDDY (sc FoR .INGARENI ..LLIERIES co LrD) [oPUC] Two CD CoPies 3 KKS LS I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 1i}3t2)2s ORDER WP.No.32227' ol,2OZ3 .=) S .riI lrr ' :\ ...\ 1 ,,2

1. - .rr.(. 2t SPt\ crt.' i' \.. 1r i,1J :i/ :, : :l -'.- i I /,! I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS